Article 8012 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1526 rec.games.programmer:8012 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Sender: usenet@apollo.hp.com (Usenet News) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:04:26 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 51 dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) starts us thinking: >I've been working on _The Legend Lives!_, a science fiction text >adventure set in the Unnkulian Universe, and I've come to believe that >score may not be such a great thing to have in a text adventure. I'm >looking for some input regarding how people think having a score >affects gameplay. > >Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems. One is the >question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game >without getting the maximum possible score. Should information puzzles >just not award points since they can be skipped? (This would ensure >that you couldn't win the game without the maximum possible score.) > >I can see several ways of dealing with this issue: > > 1. Don't award points for information puzzles . . > 2. Code in clever restrictions that force the player to solve > information puzzles even if they already know the information. > 3. Make sure that all information given at the ends of information > puzzles is randomly generated. > 4. Eliminate scoring. > 5. Make information puzzles scored, and allow them to be skipped, > but award points as soon as the information is *used*. At a general level - awarding score points is a handy way of letting the player know he has done something right, or that he has started down the path towards solving a puzzle. If you eliminate scores then you will have to come up with some other form of reward system. To adress your particular concern - I think (3) is the optimum solution. I am pretty sure some of the later Infocom games took this approach - in fact I know HHGTTG did (geting the right tool to open the hatch). If you feel that is too much work, then you need solution (6) - keep scores for information puzzles, but allow the puzzles to be bypassed. This allows completion with less than a full score - so what? The obsessive completists among us would still do a complete run-through so we could finish the game with maximum score. Those who don't care about maximum points wouldn't bother. (Did you get the point for the dwarven magazine in Adventure? How about the Don Woods stamp in Zork?) My feelings about the other proposed solutions: 1. I like reward systems. If I do something right, I want praise. 2. As you say, hard to do in an unobtrusive fashion. 4. I like reward systems. If I do something right, I want praise. 5. Aargh!! Reward *cheating*? -- John Francis johnf@apollo.hp.com The world can be divided into two classes :- those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. Article 8014 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1527 rec.games.programmer:8014 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!gmd.de!blasius.gmd.de!blasius From: blasius@gmd.de (Volker Blasius) Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: Sender: news@gmd.de (USENET News) Nntp-Posting-Host: blasius Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:10:40 GMT Lines: 105 In article <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >I've been working on _The Legend Lives!_, a science fiction text >adventure set in the Unnkulian Universe, Hurra! > and I've come to believe that >score may not be such a great thing to have in a text adventure. I'm >looking for some input regarding how people think having a score >affects gameplay. >Adventure (Colossal Cave) set the precedent that text adventures should >be scored games. Its "x out y points -- this makes you a ____" format >appears in almost all its successors, and I wonder if that's just >because we've all been following a trend somewhat blindly. >Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems. One is the >question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game >without getting the maximum possible score. Interestingly enough, >Adventure did *not* reqiure you to get all the points to win. Yes, and this plagued us for months, until someone got hold of the source code and analyzed it until he found that you had to leave the magazine (Spelunker Today) at Witt's End to get this final point that made you Adventurer Grandmaster. I always want to have seen all of a game I play, all the nooks and crannies, and a score is a big help in this direction. This implies that you should be able to finish without having got all the points, this fact telling you that you missed something or/and that you cheated (see below). And if you cheated, it serves you right not to know whether you missed something. A game that (in my opinion) overdid this, was Sierra's The Colonel's Bequest. There were loads of redundant clues you didn't get points for if you didn't examine each and every item with a magnifying glass and stuff like that, so I finished the game with many, many points missing. I always read the hint book afterwards (if there is one, and for my peace of mind there better is), so I found out what I had overlooked, but it was a bit much for my taste. >Did Zork? Did most Infocoms? I really don't remember. As far as I remember, you had to have all the points to finish. This is OK if this is also an indication that you didn't miss anything, i.e. the game is layed out this way. In fact, I prefer games that are layed out this way, but if I really missed something, I want to know. (I admit that Witt's End was just a big teaser, but it served this purpose very well.) >All the Unnkulian games are written such that you can't win and not have >gotten all the points (unless you exploit a bug in the game). This >creates tricky situations, though, particularly in "information puzzles." >Consider a puzzle that the player has to solve to get some information >needed later in the game (e.g., you must get past the troll to get into >the Wizard's Alcove containing the scroll on which the secret password is >written). If this information is the same from game to game (i.e., not >randomly generated), then the player could conceivably play the game >once, write down the needed information, and then play again (or, e.g., >make a walkthrough) without out ever solving any of the information >puzzles again. Should this be allowed? Should information puzzles >just not award points since they can be skipped? (This would ensure >that you couldn't win the game without the maximum possible score.) >I can see several ways of dealing with this issue: > -- argument deleted to save bandwidth -- Yeah, this is difficult. My first thought was: If the game contains puzzles of this kind, I think it should - give points for obtaining the information the correct way, - allow the player to cheat by skipping over the information puzzle and finish without all the points, and - maybe tell the player, "You finished with x out of y because you cheated". But then I remembered that e.g. I cheated in Spellcasting 201 in exactly this way by saving, going to the lessons and writing the information down (or rather let SCRIPT write it down for me), restoring, and using the information without the tight schedule I'd otherwise have had. The game didn't punish me for that, and this I liked, because I hate arcade games. I really don't know. Maybe it depends on the game (attending to the lessons wasn't actually solving a puzzle to gain some information). >I've been toying with the idea of replacing the score counter with a >percentage. The percentage would give the player a rough idea of how >much of the whole game he/she has seen (just like current page number >in a novel). This could be based on number of locations visited vs. >the total number of locations, number of items seen versus total number >of items, etc. Somehow this idea doesn't appeal to me very much. I like points that tell me that the thing I just did or got is essential for getting onwards; it sure increases my motivation to continue. And the number of points you got should be enough indication as to the percentage of the way that's still ahead - though in most games the number of points you get for doing things of equivalent value rises exponentially the farther you get, especially in games with large scores. >Thoughts? Yes, these are my momentary thoughts about that, nothing more. Volker -- DingDong Laboratories Ltd., Makers of Fine Eunuchs (TM) Article 8018 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1529 rec.games.programmer:8018 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Sender: usenet@apollo.hp.com (Usenet News) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:19:22 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 18 In an earlier article, I write: >dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) starts us thinking: >> [ . . . . ] >> 3. Make sure that all information given at the ends of information >> puzzles is randomly generated. >> [ . . . . ] > >To adress your particular concern - I think (3) is the optimum solution. >I am pretty sure some of the later Infocom games took this approach - >in fact I know HHGTTG did (geting the right tool to open the hatch). On re-reading the origininal article, it occurs to me that what you mean by "randomly generated" is not what I mean - my interpretation is rather more like "randomly selected from amongst several pre-generated answers". -- John Francis johnf@apollo.hp.com The world can be divided into two classes :- those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. Article 8019 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1530 rec.games.programmer:8019 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com!forbes From: forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: <1992Aug12.215318.3239@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Date: 12 Aug 92 21:53:18 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@cbfsb.cb.att.com Organization: Usenet Sports Programming Network Lines: 43 greg@Quotron.COM (Greg "Maddog" Knauss) writes: >dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >>Interestingly enough, >>Adventure did *not* reqiure you to get all the points to win. Did >>Zork? Did most Infocoms? I really don't remember. > >As far as I can remember, all Infocoms had score and they all required >you get get all the points to finish the game. ...Nnot quite. Planetfall, for example, had a number of alternate endings depending on whether or not you solved certain puzzles -- but you could "win" (reach the primary goal of saving the planet's population) without completing some of these puzzles. Also, it was possible to win Zork II without getting all the points, depending on certain semi-random actions of the Wizard. Spoilers ahead for Infocom games: In Planetfall you could "win" without restoring the Planetary Defense computers and/or without repairing Communications, but in either case you would not be rescued from the planet after saving its population (and would never get to see Ensign Twelfth Class Blather, either :-) ). In Zork II, if the Wizard cast the "filch" spell on your character, you would lose one or more treasures and would subsequently be unable to give them to the demon (which prevented you from scoring all the points). Another interesting scoring system was that of Zork III, which had a seven-point score; you received a point each time you had the opportunity to obtain one of the seven items required to win the game, regardless of whether or not you actually got the item. Your score was then a measure of how many puzzles you'd *seen*, not how many you'd solved (and in some cases, how many puzzles you had screwed up beyond hope -- some of Zork III's puzzles led to "you cannot win" outcomes, such as killing the hooded figure or giving up the book or staff). -- Scott P.S.: The rec.games.int-fiction CFV is in David Lawrence's hands, and voting should begin shortly.... Article 8020 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1531 rec.games.programmer:8020 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!decwrl!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cctr120 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: <1992Aug13.103148.309@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> From: cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) Date: 13 Aug 92 10:31:48 +1200 References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Lines: 39 In article <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: > I've been working on _The Legend Lives!_, a science fiction text > adventure set in the Unnkulian Universe, and I've come to believe that > score may not be such a great thing to have in a text adventure. I'm > looking for some input regarding how people think having a score > affects gameplay. Most of the collect-the-treasure-type games gave points for collecting treasures and storing them somewhere, and some bonuses for doing some deeds. They didn't actually give points for solving the puzzle's themselves. Example: in adventure you didn't get any points for oiling the rusty gate, just getting the trident beyond. Zork 3 used this method. The score was out of seven, one point for each of the items you needed to pass the Dungeon Master. You could actually have full points and not have solved the entire game. Infocom's Moonmist for a score stated what the player has done and yet to do. Example: > SCORE You have meet all the guests and heard about the treasure hunt but have yet to solve any of the clues or find the ghost. That would be quite hard to implement in a true non-linear game. Recognition of progress is important. I personally think that you should award points for information type puzzles and let the player use that information in other plays of the game, thus making it possible to solve the game without all the points. You should definitely not say the player cheated in the score response as it will alienate the player. However feel free to put a little "tongue in cheek" comment in at the time the player uses the information. Someone else had the idea of an object in the game giving progress "an acme progress meter". I actually quite like that idea. Be seeing you, Brendon Wyber Computer Services Centre, b.wyber@csc.canterbury.ac.nz University of Canterbury, New Zealand. "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." Article 8021 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1532 rec.games.programmer:8021 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!gnat From: gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: Date: 12 Aug 92 22:58:00 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@comp.vuw.ac.nz (News Admin) Organization: Contract to CSC, Victoria Uni, Wellington, New Zealand Lines: 11 Nntp-Posting-Host: kauri.vuw.ac.nz In-Reply-To: smayo@wang.com's message of Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:39:29 GMT In article smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes: Depends on what you call *win*. Do you win when you meet the friendly elves in Adventure? Or do you win when you get that last, blasted point, the one that drove you to your wit's end? ^^^^^^^^^ I love it!! :) Nat. (gnat@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) Article 8022 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1533 rec.games.programmer:8022 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures) Message-ID: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> Sender: news@newshost.lanl.gov Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:38:04 GMT Lines: 25 In article , smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes: |> [...] |> Depends on what you call *win*. Do you win when you meet the friendly |> elves in Adventure? Or do you win when you get that last, blasted point, |> the one that drove you to your wit's end? The latter is winning to some folk - |> it shows they've *completely* plumbed the sordid depths of the game, and |> the programmer's grungy soul. For that sort of player, score is everything. The victory condition of the game is up to the programmer. I prefer games where the victory condition is the achievement of some objective - you return to town alive and in possession of "The Lost Widget" for example. Expertise is demonstrated by achieving this objective with the _least_ possible score. This is more natural to the real world where the important thing is the achievement, not the irrelevant side-information you pick up along the way (of course, you don't know what's irrelevant until you've solved the puzzle). I really prefer stategic games to puzzles anyway. So, on that basis, I would argue to eliminate score entirely - or change its meaning so it was a measure of how well you were doing (in terms of time or resources) rather than how much you've unraveled. Games of this latter kind can actually have value in the real world. -- J. Giles Article 8038 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1539 rec.games.programmer:8038 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!news.uit.no!stud.cs.uit.no!roarf From: roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Roar Foshaug) Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@news.uit.no (USENET News System) Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:08:44 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug13.140844.3900@news.uit.no> Lines: 74 In article <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: |> |> Making the game scored creates quite a few subtle problems. One is the |> question of whether or not you should be able to finish the game |> without getting the maximum possible score.... What about games with alternative paths towards the goal state? A good adventure game should offer different ways of doing things, and what then about score calculations? I don't think explicit scores are such a good idea. The motivation to go on playing should come from the game itself as hints about how close you are to solving a problem or eventually finishing the game. Note also that 'score' can be viewed differently from a number in the upper right corner of the screen. When the player finds an item that can be used for protection, weapon, gives skills, has a value, that is also a score. For the gold-hungry, a good motivation is to find gold. For others, the $$$ is the means to getting better equipment. etc. I also feel that the explicit score may come in the way of real problem solving : "Oops, there I got ten points, does that mean this thing has a usage, etc etc". The problem is of course that I don't know the strategy the programmer uses for handing out scores. Result is that the user may end up using more brain circuitry figuring out the score-giving strategy in search of hints than actually applying logic to the gaming situation, like "hmm, this is a screwdriver; what else can it be used to but screwing? hmm, hmm...". Screwing screws, that is... :-) If you absolutely want scores and your game contains several paths, you must space the scores out on the different paths, so finishing the game along one (of several) path selections gives 100 % score. To spread the 100 % over _all_ paths is a bad idea, as you can then finish the game with far less, and the score looses all meaning. Pointless is a word that comes to mind... :-) Of course, by placing scores along the different paths so each path through the game ends up with 100% opens the possibility for the user to get more than 100% by moving "sideways" and covering several paths. But so what? The score strategy should at any rate be available in text form so the user knows how it works. The one reason I see to use scores is that it simplifies the implementation. It is reasonably simple to attach scores to objects and actions (saying magic words). It is far less simple to have a game responding with subtle, and not-so-subtle, hints about advances. For the game to be able to hand out such messages, the interface between the user and the game must be more 'detailed' or 'fine-grained' in that the game must understand more complex commands and produce responses. That leads us to creating a more complex command parser (my favourite subject, btw :-), and also the structure on the 'inside' of the game. I have not come up with all solutions myself, but like speculating on these problems... |> |> Thoughts? |> Many... :-) |> Dave Baggett |> dmb@wam.umd.edu -- Roar Foshaug (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no) Department of Computer Science University of Tromsoe 'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex N-9000 TROMSOE, NORWAY 'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex Article 8040 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1540 rec.games.programmer:8040 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!rice!owlnet.rice.edu!amitp From: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu (Amit Jayant Patel) Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures) Message-ID: Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu Organization: Rice University References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:58:20 GMT Lines: 22 In article <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: |> |> The victory condition of the game is up to the programmer. I prefer |> games where the victory condition is the achievement of some objective |> - you return to town alive and in possession of "The Lost Widget" for |> example. Expertise is demonstrated by achieving this objective with |> the _least_ possible score. This is more natural to the real world |> where the important thing is the achievement, not the irrelevant |> side-information you pick up along the way (of course, you don't |> know what's irrelevant until you've solved the puzzle). In a game, though, it's nice to explore everything --- if you were trying to encourage people _not_ to explore everything, then why spend time writing those "side dishes"? Just my opinions, Amit -- /\\ Amit J Patel, amitp@owlnet.rice.edu \\/ I think I'm at Rice University Article 8046 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1542 rec.games.programmer:8046 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!rice!adam From: adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Milo's Meadow References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> <1992Aug13.140844.3900@news.uit.no> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:22:56 GMT Lines: 23 I always kind of liked scores, although back when I was writing games for my Apple II (Applesoft BASIC, btw, is _not_ a recommended adventure development platform. 6502 assembler is even worse.), they usually were of the "Pick up Object X for Y Points" variety. I don't see why it would be terribly hard to have flags indicating whether or not you've solved the puzzle for each given puzzle; you're probably going to have less than 300 such puzzles even in a very large game; if each flag is set as a bit in a long status string, I don't see why this is a problem. One of the better implementations of this I have seen is Infocom's _Bureaucracy_. If you give the paranoid the password before legitimately learning it, he snarls "You're just guessing", you can't see the pillar (though you can climb it) in the airport before getting the ticket, and so on. Adam -- "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is _always_ something." -- Robert Penn Warren | Vote Cthulhu in '92! | adam@rice.edu If Rice shared my opinions I wouldn't have this disclaimer | 64,928 Article 8051 of rec.games.programmer: Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!davevh From: davevh@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Van Horn) Newsgroups: rec.games.programmer Subject: New scoring for text-adv game. Summary: Two scores, rather than one. Message-ID: <20507@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 13 Aug 92 18:20:43 GMT Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 35 Hello. I have another idea for the scoring in a text-adv game. If you were to have two scores, one for `completeness', one for `number of the _really_ cool puzzles you've solved', it seems to me that you could have the best of all possible worlds for the player, if at the expense of some extra proggramming. The way I see this, the `completeness' score could be computed by counting what the minimum number of puzzles left to solve before finishing, and subtracting this from the number of puzzles needed to solve the games in the shortest possible route. The `number of _really_ cool puzzles you've solved' score, on the other hand, would be just that: The number of really cool puzzles the player has solved, perhaps with a brief mention of how many `_really_ cool' puzzles there are in the game. BTW, I mean `_really_ cool' to be defined by the programmer... It may turn out that the player thinks you're full of it... Have Phun! --Dave. |\ / / |"This is real, | davevh@cs.arizona.edu | \ / / | This is now. | Thanatos@hacks.arizona.edu | / \ / ~~/ | This is a freak | bv367@cleveland.freenet.edu |/ \/ / | show, baby, anyhow." | #include -- |\ / / |"This is real, | davevh@cs.arizona.edu | \ / / | This is now. | Thanatos@hacks.arizona.edu | / \ / ~~/ | This is a freak | bv367@cleveland.freenet.edu |/ \/ / | show, baby, anyhow." | #include Article 8053 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1547 rec.games.programmer:8053 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uunet!mcsun!sunic!liuida!thoni From: thoni@ida.liu.se (Thomas Nilsson) Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures Message-ID: <1992Aug13.182525.20990@ida.liu.se> Sender: news@ida.liu.se Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:25:25 GMT Lines: 46 This discussion about scoring in adventure games have been most interesting, giving many good arguments for keeping scores or at least a progress indicator to push the player forward and given indication to when he is on the right track. A *really* good adventure game should be non-linear (I think we all agree on this, and would produce that kind of games if it wasn't for all the implementation and testing involved). In fact I think a good game should have many parallell paths and situations where the player makes a choice between one path and others, perhaps leading him different amounts closer to the ultimate goal. This makes the game more like a web or a directed graph (because you can't go back in time) than a linear road with little sideway paths quickly leading back onto the main track. As has been said before, in this kind of game a progress indicator would be very difficult to implement and even more to define, but by deciding on a (or perhaps a set of) 'correct' path through the game graph we might be able to define some events, actions or situations that are crucial to the 'perfect' solution to the game. These events might be considered as progress points but more important is the use of them in the end-game. Because by giving the player indications that his solution might not have been the most perfect one we also increase the re-playability of a game (much like the varying endings in Planetfall, where you might end up saving the planet but not yourself). How about for example: Congratulations, you managed to throw down the dictator of Agrovenia and the people pronounce you a hero. Your future might hold much glory and praise from the people of Agrovenia, but will the memory of the burnt and mutilated body of your dearest comrade Claude ever fade so that you can honestly enjoy it? /Thomas -- Little languages go a long way... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Nilsson Phone Int.: (+46) 13 12 11 67 Stenbrotsgatan 57 Phone Nat.: 013 - 12 11 67 S-582 47 LINKOPING Email: thoni@softlab.se SWEDEN Thomas_Nilsson@augs.se ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 8058 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1548 rec.games.programmer:8058 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!brokaw!nathan From: nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu (Nathan Glasser) Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures Message-ID: <1992Aug13.192458.1709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Organization: MIT LCS, Cambridge, MA References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:24:58 GMT Lines: 48 I played a text adventure game within the last few months which had no score in it. It was called Enchanted Castle. I won't say what I thought of it, but in the game, you had 3 goals: To escape from the castle, to rescue the princess, and to destroy the castle. The first was the only real requirement to end the game, but the other two were required to "win". In article <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >But here's a more realistic thought: How about having a score but >never telling the player what the maximum is? Then die-hard gamers >would have the added challenge of actually determining what the maximum >possible score *is*. (Even the game author might not know unless s/he >bothered to check all the score increments for mutual exclusivity!) The >more I think about this, the more I like it. This reminds me of the Super-NES game "Super Mario World". (I played this on a friend's system last month). I'm not sure whether the game had a score or not, but someone can probably supply that information. The similarity is that there is a single objective of the game, which is to kill off a certain creature in order to rescue a princess, but there are other things going on. There are all these different "worlds" and "exits" from the worlds. Many of the worlds have alternate exits which sometimes lead to new worlds (and sometimes not). The alternate exits are sometimes difficult to find in the worlds where they are located, and often hard to use once found. The game keeps a count of all the different exits that are used. The number that exist is quite a lot more than the number needed to actually complete the rescue objective. It doesn't tell you how many the maximum is, though I think it does indicate when you've found all the exits in some way, so the number is known "on the street" through information passing among players, magazines, etc. I think it is fair to say that some players, after completing the objective, continuing playing the game for weeks afterwards just to go through all the exits. This seems completely pointless to me. (Please, no flames from NES fans.) Games, in general, may not have a point from some points of view, but this really seemed like a waste of time. If a text adventure game had such a feature... I think it would not be desirable. After completing the objectives of the game, I can't see any reason to keep playing it when there might not even be anything more to do... At least a known fixed maximum score lets you know this. Or a fixed set of objectives known to the player, even if some of them are minor. -- Nathan Glasser fnord nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu,mintaka!brokaw!nathan YP-17 Nate on IRC Beware the DDG! Article 8062 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1549 rec.games.programmer:8062 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!exodus!dmaustin From: dmaustin@bonk.sun.com (Darren Austin) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: Date: 13 Aug 92 20:37:16 GMT References: <1992Aug13.140844.3900@news.uit.no> <1992Aug13.164321.28499@wam.umd.edu> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk In-reply-to: dmb@wam.umd.edu's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:43:21 GMT In article <1992Aug13.164321.28499@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: } adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes: } >I don't see why it would be terribly hard to have flags indicating } >whether or not you've solved the puzzle for each given puzzle; you're } >probably going to have less than 300 such puzzles even in a very large } >game; if each flag is set as a bit in a long status string, I don't see } >why this is a problem. } It's not that it's hard or an implementation problem, it's just that } it's tedious and a pain. Also it seems like the time required to come } up with creative excuses (IMHO "You're just guessing the password!" is } too lame) could be better spent on other things. I think the best solution to this problem is the one that Meretzky used in most of his later games. That was to have a random choice out of a given set. For example the password would be randomly picked out of a set, say "xyzzy", "plugh", "yoho", "zot". If the player has never seen the password in this session, then no matter what he tries for the password it will fail. This forces the player to go through the path that reveals the password. This falls into the category of trying to hide the "scoring" problem from the player. Plus it adds a little variety to the game. It is more work to code, but I think it works pretty well. --Darren -- Darren Austin | Enough with safe and sane, SunTech | it's time for dumb and dangerous! darren.austin@sun.com | Article 8068 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1550 rec.games.programmer:8068 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.udel.edu!bach.udel.edu!helie From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray) Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures) Message-ID: Sender: usenet@news.udel.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.udel.edu Organization: University of Delaware References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:57:31 GMT In article amitp@owlnet.rice.edu ( Amit ) writes: " In a game, though, it's nice to explore everything --- if you were trying to encourage people _not_ to explore everything, then why spend time writing those "side dishes"? " Wouldn't the point of "side dishes" (SD's) be to make the world seem more three-dimensional and realistic? In real life, you can do whatever you want, and not everything you do is going to get you closer to solving a particular problem. Without SD's, then everything that you are possibly allowed to do leads you towards the solution or goal, and where's the challenge of that? You know you're doing the right thing, simply because you're allowed to do it. Personally, I think many games suffer from a lack of SD's which would give the player a more realistic feel of a complete world. More thought would have to be given to what the right thing to do is -- you wouldn't be so sure just because you were allowed to do it. Ray 8-) Article 8073 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1551 rec.games.programmer:8073 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!warwick From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: <9818@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> Date: 14 Aug 92 05:25:42 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction Lines: 32 dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >I'm looking for some input regarding how people think having a score >affects gameplay. There is, IMO, one BIG drawback with scoring: It encourages cheating. Often, when a "puzzle" is solved, the player might not be aware just HOW important it was... or not. eg. If I get the egg and I get a score increase of 1000 points, I'm not likely to just eat the egg straight away, am I! Also, if I meet a wandering Glimblewop, I'll save the game, give the egg to the Glimblewop (who will eat it, since I read earlier in the game "Glimblewops will eat anything and everything, and never give you anything in return"), if I get some points, I'll be happy, otherwise, I will think "oh well, that clue was right", and restore the game. That's CHEATING. If I didn't heed the warning, then serves me right - I shouldn't find out my mistake until the Great Knoblemairn asks if I have brought the beginings of life into his Court. Of course, I SHOULD find out my mistake (not just wander aimlessly while the Knoblemairn just ignores me). -- Warwick -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au /Disclaimer: / * <-- Computer Science Department, / \_.-._/ University of Queensland, / void (if removed) v Brisbane, Australia. / Article 8075 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1552 rec.games.programmer:8075 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!neilg From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy) Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures) Message-ID: Sender: news@sfu.ca Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:35:51 GMT Lines: 21 helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray) writes: >In article amitp@owlnet.rice.edu ( Amit ) writes: >Wouldn't the point of "side dishes" (SD's) be to make the world seem more >three-dimensional and realistic? In real life, you can do whatever >you want, and not everything you do is going to get you closer to >solving a particular problem. I tend to agree with that one. One problem I have with Adams' Hitch-hiker game, for instance, is that it is extremely constrained and linear in nature. I'd love the opportunity to, say, roam around the Heart of Gold and look at things. But you can't. The only locations that appear are those crucial to solving the game. I'm much more interested in just mucking around than solving puzzles. Planetfall was kind of neat in that regard. Hey, you know what they say about getting there... I just think that half is underestimating. - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca) Article 8082 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1553 rec.games.programmer:8082 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!svin02!wsinfo11!luit1 From: luit1@wsinfo11.info.win.tue.nl (Wim Jansen) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures Message-ID: <3972@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> Date: 14 Aug 92 12:26:31 GMT References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> <1992Aug13.192458.1709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: news@svin02.info.win.tue.nl Reply-To: luit1@info.win.tue.nl Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction Lines: 25 Really, this thread is getting way long. Ah, what the hell... Scoring is not that difficult, provided we view the game as a directed graph, ie. no going back (in time). Each arc represents a road (not) taken or a puzzle (un)solved. The score for taking that road/solving that puzzle is the 'weight' of the arc. The hiscore is reached by choosing the the 'optimal' path in the graph. Some choices may lead to death or disaster, some to completing the game but not necessarily a glorious victory... I think this can be applied to all sorts of games, though the 'length' of an arc (ie. playtime) may vary considerably throughout different gametypes. Designing a program to fit this scoring mechanism, would lead to a 'programmed instruction' type of game in case of (text)adventures. As a result most of the program would not be played in a single session. This has a certain appeal, right ? Consequently, developing game would be more tedious, so a game migth end up costing more... But, hey, it would be worth money ! Just a thought, Wim. -- ====================================================================== = -- Another Key-bored Genius gets Mouse-trapped -- = = luit1@info.win.tue.nl ( in real life: W.M. Jansen ) = ====================================================================== Article 1556 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!pww From: pww+@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Peter Weyhrauch) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Subject: Points Message-ID: Date: 14 Aug 92 18:51:40 GMT Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System) Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Lines: 12 Originator: pww@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: a.gp.cs.cmu.edu Hi, all. I'm curious to hear from the people who find points to be a good way to get satisfaction out of a game. Why are points important to you? As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary. When I watch a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually happens. Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up. Peter Weyhrauch Article 8108 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1557 rec.games.programmer:8108 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Top Changwatchai) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Alternatives to score in text adventures Message-ID: <77804@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 16 Aug 92 11:05:38 GMT References: <1992Aug12.160321.24522@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX Lines: 35 If a game is going to be scored, then your option (5) is closest to how I would handle information puzzles. That is, award points for when the info is used. When the player is solving a particular puzzle for the first time, she or he will want to have to go around collecting and assembling clues. However, the seventeenth time around, he won't be as keen to go to the 83th story of the skyscraper to reprogram the city's power grid to defeat the alarm system to get into the office to pick the desk lock with a sharpened kazoo just to find a scrap of paper with the code word "ululating." By then, "realism" (in terms of forcing the character to "discover" information before using it) starts to interfere with game enjoyment. You don't even really need to come up with clever comments ("ESP") to enforce this realism (although these comments don't hurt, either). In fact, some adventures are better off without a scoring system at all. Take _Monkey's_Island_, for instance. It's an animated adventure that's packed with features that emphasize the storyline and humor, rather than game mechanics. Not only does it not have a score, but it's also impossible (as nearly as I can tell) to do something that you can't recover from. Even falling off a cliff or sinking your ship isn't fatal. And once you figure out a puzzle (say, threading your way through a complicated maze), the game then skips over that puzzle when you return (i.e., you don't have to go back through the maze when it's obvious that there's nothing more to be found there, and that the route is already mapped). Since playing MI, I've been thinking about whether a scoring system is necessary for text adventures, which boast more elaborate puzzles and situations. Probably a non-numeric scoring system is better, with a small number of ranks which indicate how well you're doing. Incidentally, the less linear the game (I feel) the more challenging and fun it is to play, as well as design. Top Article 8109 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1558 rec.games.programmer:8109 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Top Changwatchai) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures Message-ID: <77805@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 16 Aug 92 11:33:41 GMT References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX Lines: 15 Just a couple more comments on puzzle nonlinearity and completeness: The Infocom game _Arthur_ included a hints feature. After completing the game (without using any hints), I looked through all the hints to see if I had missed anything. I guess this is why some people like reading hint books after solving a game. Alternatively, some games (like Infocom's _Planetfall_ and Sierra's _Leisure_Suit_Larry_) hint at major puzzles that haven't been solved (which aren't crucial to finishing the game). Sometimes this is fun, particularly if solving a non-crucial puzzle ("side dish") leads to a witty or otherwise satisfying addition to the game. However, I don't at all feel the need to get every last point in a game if it involves simply looking at a room, searching a flowerpot, or something equally dull. Top Article 8110 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1559 rec.games.programmer:8110 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Top Changwatchai) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Subject: Re: Victory conditions (was: Alternatives to score in text adventures) Message-ID: <77806@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 16 Aug 92 11:54:16 GMT References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.184137.7579@newshost.lanl.gov> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Followup-To: rec.arts.int-fiction Lines: 39 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX Keywords: In article <1992Aug13.184137.7579@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >In article , amitp@owlnet.rice.edu (Amit Jayant Patel) writes: >|> [...] >|> In a game, though, it's nice to explore everything --- if you were trying to >|> encourage people _not_ to explore everything, then why spend time writing >|> those "side dishes"? > >Well, I don't. As I said, I like strategic games rather than puzzles. >I find those "side dishes" irritating - in my own games or someone >else's. This is not a criticism, different people have different >tastes and mine aren't drawn by arbitrary puzzle games (I've never >been patient enough to win conventional Zork-type adventure games, >for example, their arbitrary puzzles don't interest me). > >-- >J. Giles I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by "strategic games"? I've always viewed adventure games ("interactive fiction" as Infocom calls it) as being based on puzzles, as opposed to computer role-playing games (like Ultima or Wizardry) or war games. When I refer to "puzzles," though, I don't mean sterile puzzles like the 12-ball problem (which is very interesting in its own right); I refer to puzzles that take advantage of the adventure game setting: you have a bunch of stuff to pick up and use, a bunch of people to talk to, a bunch of skills to exploit, and goals that may or may not be clearly defined. Take Zork III, for example. While in some ways it was aesthetically pleasing, there simply wasn't as much atmosphere as, for example, Planetfall. The puzzles were set up in linear order (you had to solve one before moving on to the next), which made them easy and which gave the sense that the player was solving the puzzles, rather than the adventurer solving them (if that makes any sense). Top Article 1564 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!ersys!aph From: aph@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Al Hunt) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Subject: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in... Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 09:20:53 MDT Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada Lines: 38 Netters, I just got what I think is an original idea that would solve this scoring problem. It is a technique used in film and tv. How about having the adventurer filling out a diary or log book. This could be controlled by the player (ie "Update the Diary" command), or done at a scheduled time (ie Just before the adventurer goes to sleep). Example: >Sleep You find a comfortable spot, and begin to fill out your diary prior to a much needed rest. Dear Diary, I am really pleased with myself today! Not only did I find the golden fleece, but managed to solve a puzzle written on the side of a well! If I can keep progressing at this rate, I will have the Crown in my grasp in no time! --- This sort of idea does not distract from the game. The feeling of the adventurer doing the solving is there. Subtle hints could be given: Dear Diary, I finally got the golden fleece. I am feeling a little uneasy about throwing in that pit. I think I should have kept it after all. --- Well, that is a little blatent, but you get the idea. Speling is my fort, eh? Al Hunt Al Hunt aph@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Article 1566 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sunic!liuida!thoni From: thoni@ida.liu.se (Thomas Nilsson) Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures Message-ID: <1992Aug17.121459.2861@ida.liu.se> Sender: news@ida.liu.se Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden References: <3972@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <1992Aug14.173416.2497@wam.umd.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:14:59 GMT Lines: 54 dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >... If you (the player) can just wander around >anywhere and do anything then *yeah*, it's more realisitc, but it's >also *plotless* and, some will surely aruge, *pointless*. [stuff deleted] >The problem here is that the author really has to code N complete >adventures, where N is the number of possible paths that can be taken. This is not necessarily the case. It is very easy to confuse the two very different types of movement that occurs during the playing of an adventure game. One (which is the easy part) is the purely physical or geographical movement through the map with all its details (objects). We tend to stick to this when we talk about paths in the game. But the more interesting movement is through the plot, which can be viewed as the movement through time and events. This type of movement is much more interesting because *this* is what makes up the story. So like a book author the adventure author should create a world as a stage for the events that makes up the story he is going to tell. Thus the locations of the game need not be, or rather, shouldn't be mixed up with the events that are taking place there. This leads to a methodology that likes like: - define your world losely, in concept, in time a.s.o - describe your story as a sequence of events and from this find what the main settings and vital locations are - design and detail the geography of your world The main idea here is of course to place your story in the locations necessary for its progress, not the other way around. Doing this will, I think, give you the best of two worlds, Dave, the player may freely explore the immediate surroundings until the conditions arise for the next scene of your plot to carry or sweep the hero (sorry, player!) forward in the story. Agreed, this is much more work, both defining a world, a story and find the good triggering mechanisms. But, what good adventures we would get.... /Thomas -- Little languages go a long way... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Nilsson Phone Int.: (+46) 13 12 11 67 Stenbrotsgatan 57 Phone Nat.: 013 - 12 11 67 S-582 47 LINKOPING Email: thoni@softlab.se SWEDEN Thomas_Nilsson@augs.se ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 1567 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) Subject: Re: Points Sender: usenet@apollo.hp.com (Usenet News) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:54:15 GMT References: Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 32 In article pww+@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Peter Weyhrauch) writes: >Hi, all. > >I'm curious to hear from the people who find points to be a good >way to get satisfaction out of a game. Why are points important >to you? > >As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary. When I watch >a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually >happens. Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give >me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up. You seem to be missing the main difference between a movie and a game - interaction. you don't need a `score' for a movie because there isn't anything you, the watcher, can do to influence the flow of action. Playing a well-designed game is indeed a joy in itself. Even then, however, I feel a score serves a purpose. Games like those from Infocom require the solver to perform actions which are not immediately obvious. A score provides a communication channel from the game designer to the player, letting the player know that the particular strange action just performed was not only one that the game designer anticipated, but also is the action that was intended. Without that, it is sometimes impossible to tell when you have really completely solved a puzzle. Admittedly there are other mechanisms to achieve the same end, but the score is a convenient, well-accepted technique. Yes, it is artificial, but so are most of the alternative proposals I have seen. -- John Francis johnf@apollo.hp.com The world can be divided into two classes :- those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. Article 1568 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) Subject: Re: Original idea? Was Alternatives to scoring in... Sender: usenet@apollo.hp.com (Usenet News) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:00:35 GMT References: Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 31 In article aph@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Al Hunt) writes: >How about having the adventurer filling out a diary or log book. This >could be controlled by the player (ie "Update the Diary" command), or >done at a scheduled time (ie Just before the adventurer goes to sleep). > >Example: >>Sleep > >You find a comfortable spot, and begin to fill out your diary prior to a >much needed rest. > >Dear Diary, >I am really pleased with myself today! Not only did I find the golden >fleece, but managed to solve a puzzle written on the side of a well! If >I can keep progressing at this rate, I will have the Crown in my grasp in >no time! Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant! Provides feedback & reinforcement from the game designer to the player. This could be incorporated with the hints mentioned by earlier players, rather like: Dear Diary, I still don't know what to do with the candlestick, the birdcage, or the pogo stick. I think tomorrow I will try to find a way into the gingerbread house I found yesterday - maybe I'll find something inside that will help me on my way. -- John Francis johnf@apollo.hp.com The world can be divided into two classes :- those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. Article 1572 of rec.arts.int-fiction: Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!daily-planet.concordia.ca!jamesc From: jamesc@cs.concordia.ca (SCHIDLOWSKY james c.) Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction Subject: Re: Points & Alternatives to scoring... Message-ID: <4760@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Date: 18 Aug 92 03:56:23 GMT References: Sender: usenet@daily-planet.concordia.ca Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec Lines: 22 In article pww+@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Peter Weyhrauch) writes: >As a counter position, I consider points unnecessary. When I watch >a movie, I don't keep track of the "score," I just enjoy what actually >happens. Similarly, I would hope that a well designed game would give >me joy to play, not joy to watch my point tally go up. Although this thread is long, I find it interesting, but the above reminded me of something, and that is: how often I forgot to look at the score whilst playing a game. I enjoy playing it, seeing what happens and exploring. Awarding points for puzzle solving can be redundant, since it's often very obvious when you've solved one. e.g. HHGTTG: when you get that Babel Fish in your ear. However, I just thought of a variation on scoring: How about multiple scores: Wealth Score, Exploration Score, Puzzle-Solving Score... There would be even more fun in the "You have X points, you are a Y..". _-_ References: Sender: news@julian.uwo.ca (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca Lines: 8 The graphic adventure/simulation Dune does this with a twist. There is a book always at your disposal which keeps an updated history of your job so far. It has chapters outlining the history of your progress for different topics (spice production, politics, etc.). Truely a great idea. Pete scheyen@csd.uwo.ca Article 8139 of rec.games.programmer: Xref: wam.umd.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:1575 rec.games.programmer:8139 Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.programmer Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!news.uit.no!stud.cs.uit.no!roarf From: roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Roar Foshaug) Subject: Re: More on scoring in text adventures References: <1992Aug12.233804.1119@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu> Sender: news@news.uit.no (USENET News System) Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:02:41 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug18.180241.14988@news.uit.no> Lines: 38 In article <1992Aug13.155932.26491@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: |> General comments about the thread: |> |> You guys are killing me here! There have been so many good arguments |> on all sides of the scoring issue that I'm now even more undecided |> than before! |> heh heh heh :-) |> The theory that having multiple solutions to a single problem makes the |> game more realistic is interesting. I don't think it's been really |> tested to date. Can anyone think of a text adventure where many |> puzzles can be solved in several ways? Well, simply by allowing different tools to be used for the same things, the player will can choose between different routes though the game collecting different tools. Mostly, such multi-solutions to puzzles will only be spotted by the player afterhand, when the game has been played over again with different choices (ignoring the fact that most players will work on a number of saved versions of the game, trying new solutions to earlier saved ones and so on)... And of course, multi-solutions may be so simple as the player going up or down at some (one-way ?) point in the 'landscape'. |> Dave Baggett |> -- |> ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's! |> dmb@wam.umd.edu * Compu$erve: 76440,2671 * GEnie: [coming soon] Roar -- Roar Foshaug (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no) Department of Computer Science University of Tromsoe 'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex N-9000 TROMSOE, NORWAY 'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex